Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we have one additional speaker that just showed up, and so I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Garcia).

Mr. McGOVERN. We seem to have money for these other things. We heard earlier today about the fact that there are 50,000 ghost soldiers in Iraq that we are funding with our taxpayer dollars; they don't exist. Somebody is stealing that money, and where is the outrage in this Congress? Where is the outrage? Mr. Speaker, these wars deserve a debate. They deserve our oversight. We are supposed to be a deliberative body. We should be talking about these things, and we are getting more deeply involved in another war in Iraq and in Syria. We have 3,000 troops in Iraq right now. God knows how many are going to be there when we come back in January. By the way, there is nothing in this bill that prevents the President from adjusting the mission of those troops, so that they are engaged in direct on-the-ground combat. It is something that we ought to be concerned about; yet we are not. We are leaving town without even talking about this stuff. You don't need an NDAA bill to be able to debate and vote on an authorization. All we need is a Republican leadership with the backbone to bring it to the floor. This is our responsibility. This is our job. This is our constitutional responsibility; yet we are not doing anything. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to enter into the Record an article by FOX News political analyst Juan Williams entitled, ``Congress ducks its duty on ISIS vote.'' [From TheHill.com, Oct. 6, 2014] Juan Williams: Congress Ducks Its Duty on ISIS Vote (By Juan Williams) Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said recently he would not even ask his colleagues to vote on an authorization to use military force against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) until next year, when the new Congress is seated. Boehner told the New York Times, ``Doing this with a whole group of members who are on their way out the door, I don't think that is the right way to handle this.'' Then last week he changed his position, telling ABC News he is willing to call the House into session to debate the U.S. military action to destroy the terrorists. But the Speaker said it is up to President Obama to request a Congressional vote authorizing military action. Meanwhile, the Speaker said it was wrong of President Obama to try to beat the terrorists without putting American military combat ``boots on the ground'' to win the current fight. Huh? That makes no sense. When did House Republicans start taking orders from President Obama? The hard fact is the GOP House is responsible for its own failure to act on the central question of authorizing the U.S. military to put combat boots on the ground. ``Since when do we sit around waiting, using the excuse `He didn't ask'?'' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asked reporters last week. ``No, if you want to have an authorization that has any constraints on the president, you don't wait for him to write it.'' Instead, some Republican House members are busy campaigning for reelection by appealing to voters' fears about the ISIS threat. Rep. Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Republican, told his constituents that his fellow House Republicans are sharing political complaints about the president with commanders in charge of the military. ``A lot of us are talking to the generals behind the scenes, saying, `Hey, if you disagree with the policy that the White House has given you, let's have a resignation,' '' Rep. Lamborn said. He added that any Generals who resigned in protest would ``go out in a blaze of glory.'' That is an overt effort to undermine civilian control of the U.S. military, which is required by the Constitution. It is outrageous. It is a purely partisan effort to win votes by playing to extremist hatred of the president. These right-wing attacks are coming from some of the same people who condemned anyone in disagreement with any part of the Bush administration's foreign policy as ``soft on terrorism,'' ``unpatriotic'' or worse. Is it any wonder that Congress now has an 80 percent disapproval rating and a 12.6 approval rating, according to the latest Real Clear Politics average? Is it any wonder that, according to a recent ABC News/ Washington Post poll, 51 percent of Americans would not vote to reelect their own representative, the highest figure recorded on that question in the 25-year history of the poll? Article I of the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. However, Congress has not made a formal declaration of war since World War II. Since then, Authorizations for Use of Military Force or ``AUMFs'' have become politically expedient substitutes. Now, the current Congress is too cowardly to even vote on that kind of nominal approval. Some say the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs that gave President Bush the authority to use the military against the perpetrators of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, respectively, are still in effect. As my friend and Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has noted, this is ridiculous because ISIS did not exist in 2001 and 2002, so Congress could not have intended the AUMFs to apply to the group by any stretch of the imagination. Last week, one major Western democracy did call its legislature back from a weeks-long recess to vote on the critical, time-sensitive issue of military strikes against

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of John H. Rives, who passed away on November 22, 2014 at his home, surrounded by loved ones. John was a dedicated and loving husband and father. John devoted his life to his passions: clock repair and restoration. For 15 years, John was responsible for the weekly winding of the Worcester City Hall clock tower. John was an avid runner, having completed 14 marathons; he was also the running coach at the Notre Dame Academy in Worcester. On behalf of the people of Worcester, I ask that all of my colleagues join me in keeping the Rives family in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my great frustration and anger that this Congress--the 113th Congress--continues to ignore its constitutional responsibilities to debate and vote on whether to authorize the U.S. war against Islamic State forces in Iraq and Syria. On July 25, this House voted 370-40 that, if the United States engages in sustained combat operations in Iraq, then the House would need to authorize such actions. Let me read exactly what this House approved by such an overwhelming, bipartisan majority: The President shall not deploy or maintain United States Armed Forces in a sustained combat role in Iraq without specific statutory authorization for such use enacted after the date of the adoption of this concurrent resolution. That vote, supported by 180 Republicans and 190 Democrats, was taken nearly 4.5 months ago. What has happened since then? On August 8, just 2 weeks after the House vote, the U.S. began bombing Islamic State forces in Iraq. We are now bombing Iraq to protect infrastructure, as part of coordinated military operations with Kurdish and Iraqi military forces, and to take back or to hold cities, towns, and other territory. We are flying dozens of bombing sorties nearly every day in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, we have also escalated the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, ostensibly as trainers and advisers. On November 7, the President announced yet another escalation in the number of U.S. troops deployed to Iraq, sending roughly an additional 1,500 troops to the region for a ``comprehensive training effort'' for Iraq's army. When they arrive, this will put the number of American troops in Iraq at around 3,000. The U.S. Central Command is also working on setting up new ``expeditionary advise-and-assist operation centers'' far outside the cities of Baghdad and Erbil. What else has happened since July? We expanded the war to Syria. On September 17, this House voted to include in the short-term continuing resolution authority to arm and train certain Syrian rebel forces, ostensibly to provide ground troops inside Syria to fight Islamic State forces. Five days later, the U.S. began bombing inside Syria. We have flown scores of bombing missions inside Syrian territory against the Islamic State and--and this should come as no surprise--other radical groups like the Khorasan Group. This week, we are in military negotiations with Turkey to establish a safe zone--a no-fly zone--along the northern border of Syria that will cover territory inside of Syria and inside Turkey. The President has asked for an additional $5.6 billion from Congress to augment the Pentagon's overseas contingency operations account, the OCO. About $3.4 billion of that would go to the operations against the Islamic State, and another $1.6 billion would directly support the Iraqi training and equipping mission. I have no doubt that all or most of those funds will be included in the omnibus appropriations bill next week. Mr. Speaker, if this doesn't add up to our forces being engaged in sustained military combat operations, then what in the world does? Many Members keep talking about prohibiting U.S. troops from having boots on the ground. Mr. Speaker, we already have nearly 3,000 pairs of boots on the ground in Iraq, and I don't know how many people we have supporting and carrying out bombing missions because the Pentagon and the White House haven't told us. Enough is enough. This House needs to draft, debate, and vote on whether to authorize this vast array of military operations known as Operation Inherent Resolve before we adjourn this year. This war began under this Congress, the 113th Congress. It has escalated under the 113th Congress. It has expanded from Iraq to Syria and now to Turkey under the 113th Congress. It is the responsibility of the 113th Congress to authorize it or not. We need to take care of our business--real, serious, life-and-death business--before we walk out the door next week. We need to do our jobs. No more excuses, no more whining about how the White House should send Congress a request. It is the institutional and constitutional duty of the Congress of the United States to decide matters of war and peace. It is time for the leadership of this House to step up to the plate and bring an authorization to the floor to be debated and voted on before we adjourn. If not, then shame on this House and shame on the leadership for failing to carry out our most sacred duty to our uniformed men and women, their families, and the American people.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on November 6, for the second time, I participated in Monte's March, which is a 26-mile walk from Northampton, Massachusetts, to Greenfield, Massachusetts, to raise awareness about the problem of hunger, not only in our community but throughout America, and to raise funds for the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts. The march is led by Monte Belmonte, 93.9 FM, The River radio host, who dressed up as Evel Knievel to attract some attention, a very unique personality, but somebody with a heart of gold, who has been doing this now for several years. Joining us on the march was David Sullivan, the northwestern district attorney; Andrew Morehouse, the executive director of the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts; Erika Connell Cooper of Williamsburg, Massachusetts; Georgiann and Rick Kristek of Northampton; Sean Barry, who runs 4 Seasons Liquor store, who was with us last year when we marched, a great guy; Dan Finn of Pioneer Valley Local First; a group called Mutton and Mead, which is a medieval performance troop, that walked with us for a big portion of the walk; Brian Lapis, Channel 22 weather team; ``Steve the Hippie'' Fendell, a local activist, who is well-known in the community; and also joining us was Natalie Blais and Keith Barnicle of my staff in Northampton. It was a cold and rainy day when we began our march at 6 a.m. in the morning in Northampton. We were greeted by the mayor of Northampton, David Narkewicz, who walked with us to the border and wished us well. We had many stops along the way. We stopped at the Amherst Survival Center and met with Executive Director Mindy Domb and her incredible crew. The Amherst Survival Center is a place where people go to get food, sometimes to get clothing, to get support and advice, and even sometimes medical attention. It is an incredible place, but when you visit there, you realize the fact that there are so many in our community who are struggling. We had a brief stop at Chandler's Restaurant in South Deerfield, Massachusetts, and met with Chef Greg Monette, who prepared this wonderful meal for us. We then continued our walk and met with Gordie and Barbara Woodward of Richardson's Candy. That is also in Deerfield--probably the best chocolate you are ever going to taste--and we were given some to keep our sustenance up. We also were greeted by Emily and Oliver Rich from Tea Guys, which is this remarkable business in Whately, Massachusetts, where they blend teas from all around the world and blend teas to your personal liking, but they met us on this cold and rainy day with their crew and gave us hot tea to keep us going. It was very much welcome. We ended in Greenfield at 6 p.m. at night and kind of celebrated our achievement at Seymour, the pub, which is a new pub in Greenfield, and we had incredible pizza--the best pizza in the world--from Magpie Pizza, also in Greenfield. We did this, again, to raise awareness and to raise funds. I want my colleagues to understand that for me, even though the march was physically grueling, it was unbelievably inspirational because, along the way, people would stop their cars and hand us donations for the food bank. They would tell us their stories in which many people struggled to put food on their table and how they got through it. This was all broadcast live on 93.9 FM. People called in constantly, making pledges and telling stories and offering their support. It made me realize what a generous community that I have the privilege of representing, and it was really uplifting on a whole number of levels. Mr. Speaker, what happened on November 6 with Monte's March is not unique in the fact that there are people all over this country that are trying to raise funds and that are trying to help people put food on their table. We live in the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world, and close to 50 million of our fellow citizens are hungry. It is unconscionable. We should be ashamed of that fact. There are people like Monte Belmonte and others who are doing their part, but what I worry about is that those of us in this Chamber are not doing our part. As we bring this Congress to a close, I think it is important that we reflect on the fact that, when it comes to the issue of hunger, this Congress has done nothing, absolutely nothing; in fact, we have made it worse. Time and time again, we have had Members of Congress come onto this floor and attack the programs that provide people food--whether it is SNAP or WIC or summer feeding programs or school feeding programs--that have come under attack by Member after Member, on the Republican side in particular, and we have seen an attack on poor people that is really disconcerting. The war on the poor, Mr. Speaker, has to come to an end. We have had debates on SNAP, which used to be known as Food Stamps, where Members of Congress have come on the floor and said, ``Well, we can cut that program because it is wasteful; it is inefficient,'' when the reality is it is one of the most efficiently run programs in the Federal Government, with a record low error rate and a record low fraud rate. I wish the Department of Defense had that kind of record when it comes to procuring weapon systems and other things that they utilize. We ought to hold them to the same standard that we hold the agency that oversees our SNAP program. We have had Members of Congress come on this floor and demean poor people and insult them and belittle their struggle. Maybe it makes it easier for those Members to vote against programs like SNAP when they demonize and belittle poor people, but it is wrong. The fact of the matter is that more and more people are utilizing food banks and food pantries. They are going to their churches and their synagogues and their mosques trying to get the resources and the food to put on their table for their families. Here in Washington, the response of Congress is to cut it. More cuts. And then I read in a publication this morning that next year the Republican majority plans to go after these programs even more. Let me just say to my colleagues that those who benefit from places like the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts are not just the homeless and the unemployed. Increasingly, their clientele include people who have jobs, but the jobs pay so little that they can't afford to pay their bills and put food on the table. The minimum wage in this country is so low that if you go to work, you still live in poverty. Now, we can fix that. But, unfortunately, in this last Congress, the Republican leadership refused to allow us even to bring a minimum wage vote to this House floor for a vote. We could have lifted a whole bunch of people out of poverty and we could have helped make a big dent in the hunger problem if we increased people's wages, but we were told, No, we are not going to do it. And not only are we not going to do it, you can't have a debate and a vote on it in the people's House of Representatives. It is outrageous. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that hunger is a political condition. We ought to be talking about how to solve this problem. And it is solvable. There are some problems I am not sure how we solve. This is not one of them. What we need is the political will. What we need is the inspiration, like those who marched with Monte Belmonte from Northampton to Greenfield. I hope that that spirit is contagious so that more people in this Chamber will take this issue seriously. There is no reason why anybody in the United States of America should go hungry. There is no reason at all. I have called on the White House to put together a White House conference on food and nutrition so we can come up with a holistic plan to deal with this issue. I have pleaded with my colleagues on the Republican side to stop their assault against the poor in this country. And we are going to continue to battle them next year, unfortunately, because it seems like that is the direction they want to go. But as we recess today to go home for Thanksgiving, we are all going to go back to our respective districts, have a nice turkey dinner, enjoy our family and enjoy the day, but for millions and millions and millions of Americans, they don't have that luxury. They don't know where they are going to get their meal tonight, never mind on Thanksgiving. So I would urge my colleagues to visit their local food banks, visit their food pantries, talk to people who are on SNAP, talk to families that are struggling with hunger. Listen and learn, and then come back here and act. It may not fit into a particular ideology that some of my colleagues ascribe to in this Chamber, but the fact of the matter is we have a moral obligation to deal with this issue. These are our brothers and our sisters and their children we are talking about. We cannot ignore this problem anymore. So I just want to say that, Mr. Speaker, for me, joining Monte's march on November 6 was an incredible experience because at the end of the day they raised over $65,000 for the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts. That march made a difference. People will be fed. That is an important thing. I wish everybody in this Congress would do something similar. I wish that when we come back next year, when we deal with these safety net programs, when we deal with programs that provide people good food and nutrition, we approach these issues with the intent to help people, not hurt people. I will just close with this, Mr. Speaker. Hunger costs this Nation very dearly: you have lost productivity in the workplace; kids who go to school hungry don't learn; senior citizens taking their medication on an empty stomach because they can't take medicine without food who end up in emergency rooms. There is also a link between food insecurity and obesity, because the cheapest food available is usually junk food. So we are paying dearly for hunger in America. And when people say we can't afford to deal with this issue, my response is, We cannot afford not to deal with this issue. This is something that we can solve. To my colleagues who only seem concerned about the bottom line, who say we can't invest in anything because we have a deficit and a debt, I will tell you that the lack of attention that we are giving this issue is costing us, is adding to our deficit, and is adding to our debt. So if all you care about is the bottom line, you should join with me and others and those who do marches like Monte Belmonte all across this country and make a difference. Let's get together. Let's make it our mission next year to come together in a bipartisan way to end hunger now. That is my hope and that is what I will pray for during this holiday season. I look forward to seeing my colleagues when we come back.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for the time. Mr. Chairman, there used to be a time when our Republican friends respected science. There used to be a time when people like Vern Ehlers, a physicist from Michigan, was welcomed in the Republican Conference. Sadly, those times are long gone. If we can't agree on basic scientific principles, then there isn't much hope for us to agree on much else. I will remind my colleagues, for the record, up is up, down is down, gravity exists, the Earth orbits the Sun, and climate change is real. It doesn't matter whether the data is private or public. What matters is whether the findings are peer reviewed and can withstand scientific scrutiny. Scientists understand that the real litmus test for supporting a finding is independent confirmation, using a completely independent method. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to also join with the ranking member in honoring Don Sisson. As she mentions, this will be his last day on the floor. I think his last day is this week. Mr. Speaker, Don has been working for the Rules Committee for 10 years under both Republicans and Democrats. He is a native of upstate New York, and he has been around for historic debates in Congress and has been an integral part of the Rules Committee staff for many, many, many years. As Ms. Slaughter pointed out, he will be moving on to the White House, and we are going to miss him dearly. I think it is important for all of us to take a moment just to recognize that Don represents the best, I think, of the staff that work here. He is up here for all the right reasons. He wants to make the world a better place, and he has shown this great ability to work across party lines and to build things and make things happen. I know he will use those skills in his new position at the White House. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee meets an awful lot, and we are together an awful lot, and so we are all family. So when somebody leaves, it is painful because it is like a family member moving on and going someplace else. So we are going to miss Don, but he won't be that far away. We will work with him in a new capacity. On behalf of everybody on that committee, members and staff included, I think we all owe you a debt of gratitude, and we are grateful for your service. You have served this institution with great honor and dignity, and we wish you all the best in your new job. So thank you very much for a job well done. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to announce to my colleagues that I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to continue the ATTIRE Act. This bill would support textile research and innovation in the United States and will continue to strengthen the Made in America Movement as a conduit for creating American jobs and bolstering our economy. It is the right way to help create American jobs. To discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we had one other speaker who is not here, but in light of that, I will close. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I am going to ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, we will make in order the ATTIRE Act that Mr. Price so carefully described to all of us here today. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the gentleman if he has additional speakers besides himself?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thought one of the lessons of this last election was that the American people wanted Washington to work, that they wanted us to work toward passing legislation, sensible legislation, that could be passed in both Chambers, that could go to the White House and be signed into law, and we could move this country forward, but I guess that lesson somehow escaped my Republican colleagues because what we are doing here today is another colossal waste of time. Now, I rise in opposition to this rule, and I rise in opposition to the underlying legislation. The points of the bills that we are considering today seek to prevent the EPA from protecting public health and the environment. It is that simple. The White House has already issued three veto threats against these bills. The other body is not going to take these bills up, so here we are in this lameduck session with a lot of work that we should be doing, and instead, we are doing this. On December 11, this government will run out of money. Maybe we should be spending some time trying to figure out how to avoid another government shutdown or to do the appropriations process in a more thoughtful way, but instead, my colleagues are going to wait until the last minute and bring a bill to the floor that most Members will not have time to read, and then that will be that. Maybe we should be talking about passing an increase in the minimum wage. We are reading story after story about how income inequality in this country is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Maybe we ought to make sure that work actually pays a livable wage in this country, or maybe we could pass a pay equity bill so that women can earn equal pay for equal work--we are not doing any of that--and that surely would be signed by the White House. What about an immigration bill? The United States Senate passed in a bipartisan way a comprehensive immigration bill, dealing with a very important problem in this country. It is supported by labor unions, and it is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and again, it had a bipartisan vote in the United States Senate. Are we doing that here today? No. We can't even bring that to the floor to have a debate because the leadership in this House runs such a closed process. We have wasted time in this Chamber debating Republican messaging bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act, to undermine the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, and weaken public health and environmental regulations while failing to consider legislation to help people, to create jobs, to boost the economy and help vulnerable Americans rise out of poverty, so instead of kind of doing the people's business, we are back into Republican messaging bills again. The three bills that we are talking about here today--H.R. 4795, H.R. 4012, and H.R. 1422--will allow industry to have a greater influence over the policies developed at the EPA, will weaken our air quality, and prevent the EPA from using critical high-quality and peer-reviewed data in their policy development. Why in the world would we want to do this? Well, because the Republicans' corporate constituency demand it, so this may be a nice way to thank big Republican donors for their support in the last election, but quite frankly, it is lousy policy. H.R. 4795, the cleverly named Promoting New Manufacturing Act, does nothing to boost manufacturing and does nothing to help improve the permitting process or create jobs. The bill requires the EPA to issue both regulations and guidance concurrently when issuing national ambient air quality standards. If this requirement is not met, a new or expanding facility must only show it complies with the old insufficient standard. Not only will this legislation create several new avenues for litigation, but it will also weaken air quality protections and threaten public health. Why in the world would we even contemplate doing that? H.R. 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act, will prevent the EPA from using the best available scientific data, harm future research, and delay the implementation of public health protections. Far from protecting transparency and accountability, this bill will limit the body of high-quality scientific research that can be used and will undermine the EPA's ability to function. The EPA relies on peer-reviewed scientific research that often contains information scientists are legally required to keep confidential, like an individual's health records. How is the EPA supposed to determine the effects of a pollutant on our health if they are not allowed to look at health data? Individual health records should be highly protected, and I would like to point out that the peer-reviewed studies that form the basis of EPA's actions are already available. The purpose of this bill is not to create transparency but to create bureaucracy, to make it impossible for the EPA to develop policies to protect our health and our environment. There is no secret science, just science that my Republican colleagues do not like. I am pleased to see that the amendment to H.R. 4012, submitted by my good friend from Massachusetts, Joe Kennedy, was made in order. I strongly support this amendment, which would allow the EPA to continue to rely upon peer-reviewed scientific data, even if that data is legally required to be kept private. The EPA must be allowed to continue to use this critical data in their policy development. Lastly, H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, will slow down the EPA's ability to develop regulations and effectively force the EPA to include individuals with financial conflicts on the Science Advisory Board, so long as the conflicts are disclosed. It isn't logical to include an individual on a decisionmaking board if that individual would be financially affected by its decision. I should note that the legislation limits the participation of academic scientists with relevant subject matter expertise from providing their advice to EPA, which will lead to panels with disproportionately high amounts of industry representation. This bill would allow the Republicans' corporate constituency a direct route to disrupting the EPA's ability to create regulations designed to protect our health. I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ``I get it. You don't like science, and you don't like science that interferes with some of the interests of your corporate clients.'' But we need to rely on science so we can protect the public health and we can protect our environment. One of the main jobs that we are tasked with is to protect our constituencies. So why we would be trying to move ourselves back in a direction that would endanger public health is beyond me. Mr. Speaker, today, we are considering three bills to undermine public health, hurt the environment, and tie up the EPA in red tape. I would, again, say to my colleagues, ``We are going to have this debate here today. These bills aren't going anywhere. We are wasting our time by doing this today.'' I am just going to close with one other issue that we ought to be talking about. In July, a majority in this House supported an amendment that I had offered, saying that if in fact we had sustained combat operations in Iraq, that Congress would vote to authorize, or not, such action. Well, clearly, we have sustained combat operations going on in Iraq. We are getting sucked deeper and deeper and deeper into war while this Congress sits and twiddles its thumbs and does everything possible to avoid a debate on whether or not we should be involved in another war. You know what, there are thousands of Americans that have been put in harm's way, and we are not living up to our constitutional responsibility. Surely, we should be spending some time talking about that, whether or not the United States ought to get sucked into another war halfway around the world, a war that will cost American lives and that will continue to cost a great deal in terms of our national treasure, but instead of debating that and other things that really matter to people, we are doing it on a messaging bill. I regret the fact that here we are in these few days that we have left in this lameduck session, doing this kind of stuff, when we ought to be doing the people's business. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this restrictive rule, vote against all of the underlying legislation, and I plead to the Republican leadership: let's bring something to the floor that will help the American people. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing that it is frustrating to be back after the election and to kind of engage in the same old-same old Republican partisan messaging bills that are going nowhere that just waste time. We ought to do the people's business in the next campaign which is about to start in a little while. The fact that we are back here not debating this conflict that is now going on in the Middle East, the fact that we are not debating an immigration bill, the fact that we are not debating a pay equity bill or a minimum wage bill and we are doing this is very discouraging. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to send a strong statement today and vote ``no'' on this rule and certainly vote ``no'' on the previous question. I would also urge, if the rule passes, that we vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. We have a lot of work to do. What we are doing here today does not constitute that work, and I regret it very much. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on November 14, 2014 I travelled to El Salvador to commemorate the assassination of six Jesuit priests 25 years ago. As a result, I was absent for rollcall votes 518 and 519. If I were present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 518 and ``no'' on rollcall 519.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the accomplishments of Julia Bancroft Elementary School. Julia Bancroft Elementary School, located in Auburn, Massachusetts, was recently named a 2014 National Blue Ribbon School by the U.S. Department of Education. Julia Bancroft prides itself on the ability to prepare its students to succeed in a dynamic and fast-paced world. With a student body of approximately 285 third through fifth graders, Julia Bancroft Elementary focuses on its students at an individual level. Under the leadership of Principal Susan M. Lopez, teachers and staff have worked tirelessly to create a rigorous yet inviting environment where students are valued and differences are celebrated. The Julia Bancroft pledge, ``I believe, I will achieve, and I will succeed,'' encompasses Julia Bancroft Elementary School's tenets to help each student reach their potential. To encourage students to become leaders and give back to their community, Julia Bancroft Elementary promotes numerous Community Service Learning Projects. Through fundraising, volunteer work, and reading programs, these projects have instilled in the students the importance of ``giving back.'' Other programs that contribute to student development while simultaneously benefiting the community include the Inventors' Fair, Turkey Trot, C.A.R.E. program, Literacy Night, Math Night, annual Community Reading Day, the Festival of the Arts, and various food drives. Additionally, Julia Bancroft Elementary has strived to close academic gaps between students. Through the implementation of planned Intervention Blocks, Professional Learning Community discussions, and consistent differentiated instruction, teachers have targeted high- achievers and developed specific targeted instruction. This has resulted in the closing of gaps in the low income and special needs subgroups. None of this would be possible without the talented educators and staff members of Julia Bancroft Elementary School. Principal Susan M. Lopez has demonstrated a deep passion for the success of her students, as well as a commitment to creating a warm and welcoming learning environment. The tireless efforts of educators and staff at Julia Bancroft Elementary School have earned them the ``Level I School'' status for the past two years. I'm so proud to represent the faculty, students, and staff of Julia Bancroft Elementary School, and I cannot wait to hear about their future successes. I ask you to join me in congratulating Julia Bancroft Elementary School for being selected as a 2014 National Blue Ribbon School.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to David L. McKeehan, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the North Central Massachusetts Chamber of Commerce (NCMCC). After 30 years of dedicated service, Dave will be retiring from the Chamber of Commerce on December 31, 2014. Dave formed the North Central Massachusetts Chamber of Commerce by merging the Fitchburg and Leominster Chambers of Commerce, along with smaller business groups. Over the course of his tenure, he procured over $4.5 million in private sector funding and over $1 million in government grants for economic development programming in the region. Under his leadership, the Chamber of Commerce has grown a community of business memberships reaching over 1,000 member firms that employ upward of 25,000 individuals in the cities of Leominster and Fitchburg and surrounding towns. Dave was instrumental in the creation as well as saving of jobs within North Central Massachusetts during his years at the Chamber. Dave is a true leader within the community and Chambers across the country. His hard work and dedication was recognized when he was awarded the ``Service Above Self Award'' by Mount Wachusett Community College for his contribution to the school as well as the 29 surrounding cities. Dave was also recognized by Fitchburg State University as being one of the ``100 Most Influential People in the Last 100 Years.'' When David officially retires, the Chamber of Commerce will lose a remarkable president and asset to their organization. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in congratulating David McKeehan on his retirement and wishing him the very best with his future endeavors.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the wonderful accomplishments of the St. Bernadette School. St. Bernadette School, located in Northborough, Massachusetts, was recently named a 2014 National Blue Ribbon School by the U.S. Department of Education. Deeply rooted in Catholic ideals, St. Bernadette School strives to encourage intellectual curiosity, spiritual inspiration, and a high moral compass. Its rigorous academic program, commitment to Catholic values, and diverse student body has led the School to be called the `Flagship of the Diocese' by the Most Reverend Robert J. McManus, Bishop of Worcester. Since its founding in 1997, St. Bernadette School's enrollment has grown exponentially. The School's current body of approximately 500 students enables it to give students individual attention while holding them to high academic standards. Through new initiatives, St. Bernadette School has incorporated technology into the learning process. Recently, the School has built a computer lab, a mobile Macintosh lab, and installed interactive whiteboards in every class room. An iPad program was also started in the 2012-2013 academic year, providing every student with additional learning opportunities. Foreign language programs are required at every grade level, in addition to pre-algebra and project-based learning initiatives. This diverse curriculum has resulted in many middle school students at St. Bernadette being selected to the Junior Honor Society, an organization that recognizes achievement in Scholarship, Leadership, Service, Character and citizenship. St. Bernadette also fosters community through its extra-curricular programs, hosting a variety of family-oriented events and fundraisers throughout the year. The Parent Guild hosts events such as Spree Day, Family Picnic, Walkathon, and more. The parents of St. Bernadette students also coach the school's sports teams, which include basketball, cross country, golf, ski, and track. In addition, students from grades 6-8 are divided into Houses, where they practice leadership and responsibility while planning communal outreach programs. None of this would be possible without the work of the talented educators and staff members of St. Bernadette School. Principal Deborah C. O'Neil has demonstrated a passionate commitment to the success of her students. Time and time again, this has been exemplified through the School's consistent growth rate and track record of achievements. I'm so proud to represent the faculty, students, and staff of St. Bernadette School, and I cannot wait to hear about their future successes. I ask you to join me in congratulating St. Bernadette School for being selected as a 2014 National Blue Ribbon School.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, today CVS Health received the Excellence in Cancer Awareness Award at the Twenty-Second Annual Action for Cancer Awareness Awards Luncheon. The annual award was given by the Congressional Families Cancer Prevention Program of the Prevent Cancer Foundation to CVS Health for their commitment to health by taking tobacco products off their shelves. Dr. Andrew Sussman accepted the award on behalf of CVS Health and I want to commend him, and CVS Health, for their commitment to prevent cancer and improving the health of every American by removing tobacco from their stores. Prevent Cancer Foundation Award Acceptance/Recognition Receipt Remarks for CVS Health--Andrew J. Sussman, MD, President CVS/MinuteClinic, SVP and Associate CMO, CVS Health Thank you very much. I'm very happy to be able to join you all today and am honored to accept this wonderful recognition on behalf of CVS Health. As you may have heard, we recently marked an important milestone in the history of our company. We officially changed our corporate name to CVS Health. We made this change to reflect our broader health care commitment. And along with the start of CVS Health, we also ended the sale of all cigarettes and tobacco products at CVS/pharmacy nationwide. By removing these items from our store shelves, we believe we can make a difference in the health of all Americans. In fact, there's evidence that removing tobacco products from retailers with pharmacies may lead to substantially lower rates of smoking with implications for reducing tobacco-related deaths. A recent CVS Health study found that there was up to a 13 percent reduction in purchasers of tobacco products in Boston and San Francisco AFTER policies eliminating the sale of tobacco products at retailers with pharmacies were put in place. If retailers with pharmacies across the country were to forego sales of tobacco products, the result could be up to 60,000 fewer tobacco-related deaths annually. Along with removing tobacco-related products from our stores, we also launched a national smoking cessation campaign to help millions of Americans to quit smoking. We know that 7 in 10 people who smoke want to quit. We also know that for most people it will take several tries before they are successful. That's why, with help from national experts, we designed the CVS Health smoking cessation program. We've combined the efforts of CVS/pharmacy, CVS/ minuteclinic and CVS/caremark to come up with a comprehensive program that will help smokers to quit. The program is made of up four components--Readiness assessment, Education, Medication Support, and Coaching. For example, at our 925 walk-in medical clinics called CVS/ minuteclinic, our ``Start to Stop'' program puts all four of these support components into action. Our Nurse Practitioners begin with an assessment to create a customized treatment plan. They then provide ongoing education and support to meet the individual needs of smokers who are trying to quit. Our team also provides an overview of medication options and, if appropriate, can prescribe medication. And finally, our Nurse Practitioners provide face-to-face personalized coaching to help patients keep the momentum going and avoid relapse. This is another example of how CVS/minuteclinic is expanding access to walk-in health care seven days a week, as part of the changing health care landscape. MinuteClinic is also affiliated with 41 major health systems around the country--and growing--affiliations that include integration of electronic medical records, physician medical director collaboration, and collaboration on wellness programs such as smoking cessation. As we have placed a growing emphasis on our purpose as a health care organization, we've been truly humbled by the outpouring of encouragement and support we've received since announcing the removal of cigarettes and tobacco products from our stores. It's come from all corners . . . from our customers and colleagues, public health advocates, elected officials and the media. And we are particularly thankful for today's recognition from the Prevent Cancer Foundation--a group that has been truly at the forefront of cancer prevention since it was founded, nearly 30 years ago. I hope through our efforts, along with the work of groups like yours, we can help more Americans embark on their path to better health. Thank you again for this wonderful honor.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Not only are we engaged in sustained combat operations in Iraq, but the President announced last week that he intends to escalate and expand those military operations, and quite likely extend them to Syria. This is a moment in history when the House should not and must not remain silent, let alone slink out of town. We have a responsibility to act. Until that happens, until we get an ironclad commitment from the leadership of this House that we will debate and vote on an authorization, then I would urge my colleagues to vote down this rule. We have a constitutional responsibility when it comes to war. Now, I don't believe we should go into another war, but whether you agree with me or you think we should launch into another war, we have an obligation, a constitutional responsibility, to debate and vote on that authorization. We are not doing that. I urge the Speaker to give us that commitment.

Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. And for the benefit of my colleagues, I want to be very clear about one of the implications of the language in this rule that is before us. A vote for this rule is a vote to shut off the mechanisms of the War Powers Resolution for the next 2 months. If any Member of this House has any concerns about the ongoing military operations in Iraq, the potential of U.S. military airstrikes in Syria, or the possible introduction of U.S. combat ground forces into either country, then this rule will tie their hands for the next 2 months. If any Member introduces a privileged resolution under the terms of the War Powers Resolution, this rule freezes that resolution in place and stops the clock that would normally advance under the War Powers Resolution. It is perfectly clear that the House will not debate and vote on an authorization on Iraq at this time. Unfortunately, it is not clear if any vote will ever happen at any time in this House, even after we come back in November, even though there is a growing bipartisan consensus that such an authorization is needed. This rule freezes out each and every Member of this House from taking any action to move forward the possibility of a vote on Iraq or Syria under the terms put in place by the War Powers Resolution. On August 8, the U.S. began daily bombing in Iraq--at first to protect the Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar. But almost immediately, the bombing campaign expanded to include infrastructure, and then to provide air support to ground operations to retake territory by Iraqi and Kurdish military forces, and then to protect more major infrastructure, and this week to dislodge ISIL from the environs of Baghdad. For 6 weeks, I have been waiting patiently for the leadership of this House to recognize that what we all know is true: the United States is engaged in hostilities and carrying out sustained combat operations in Iraq and that it is time for the House to debate and vote on an authorization. Yesterday, this House voted to authorize training and equipping Syrian opposition forces. But we have yet to debate and vote on an authorization for the combat operations we are already carrying out in Iraq. Over 150 airstrikes--bombs falling nearly every day--in Iraq. And if that doesn't count as sustained combat, then I don't know what the hell does. I hear the Senate is drafting an authorization, but no such leadership is happening here in the House. The Speaker says he is waiting for the White House to send a request for an authorization to the House. But as I have said before, the President has stated that he thinks he has all the authority in the world that he needs or wants. It is Congress that is failing to carry out its constitutional responsibilities. It is Congress that is shirking its duties. It is Congress that is sniping from the sidelines while avoiding any responsibility for the servicemen and -women that we are placing in harm's way. In July, this House overwhelmingly passed a resolution that I offered, along with Walter Jones and Barbara Lee, requiring the House to vote on an authorization. And I have been waiting--patiently and respectfully--for the Speaker to schedule such a vote. Instead, this rule goes in the opposite direction, shutting down the ability of any Member to introduce a privileged resolution and allowing it to mature, as we set forth in the War Powers Resolution. Now, I understand that this restriction is often included when Congress is in recess for a prolonged period of time. But this time is different, Mr. Speaker, and every Member of this Chamber knows it is different.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I won't need 1\1/2\ minutes, but I want to be clear for Members. The privileges that are afforded to Members of this House to vote on the war, those privileges are taken away by this rule. I want to assure the gentleman from Texas, my colleague and my friend, that I am not interested in grandstanding, and any such a suggestion I find offensive, quite frankly. What I am interested in is us doing our job. And I want to remind my colleagues that war is a big deal. It is a big deal, and it is long past time that this House treated it as such. We have a constitutional responsibility that we are not living up to. We voted in July overwhelmingly to say that if there are sustained combat operations in Iraq we are going to have a vote on that. Well, there are sustained combat operations in Iraq. We are much more deeply involved today than we were in July. And I predict by the time we come back in November we will be even more deeply involved. When are we going to do our job? When are we going to vote? That is what my complaint is about, I would say to the gentleman from Texas. My complaint is that we are not living up to our constitutional responsibilities. I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.